What Happened Before the Beginning?

Every cosmologist and astronomer agrees: our Universe is 13.7 billion years old. Using cutting-edge technology, scientists are now able to take a snapshot of the Universe a mere heartbeat after its birth.

Armed with hypersensitive satellites, astronomers look back in time to the very moment of creation, when all the matter in the Universe exploded into existence. It is here that we uncover an unsolved mystery as old as time itself - if the Universe was born, where did it come from? Meet the leading scientists who have now discovered what they believe to be the origin of our Universe, and a window into the time before time.

The big bang theory holds that the entire universe was once packed tightly into an unimaginably dense and tiny space, known as a "singularity." That is, until roughly 13.7 billion years ago, when a colossal burst of energy and pressure started to give rise to entire worlds, galaxies and interstellar particles, forming the universe as we know it today.

But what brought about that big bang? Physicists are left scratching their heads at that question. Since the universe began on such a tiny level, the laws of relativity don't fully apply. Instead, quantum theory, which deals with the lawless and bizarre world of the very small, must also be summoned.

Successfully answering the question of what existed before the big bang would require bridging the gap between the so-far mutually incompatible worlds of relativism and quantum mechanics. But even though that bridge has yet to be constructed, theories abound.

"Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe," theoretical physicist Michio Kaku told scienceline.org. "Big Bangs happen all the time."

In the description: "Every cosmologist and astronomer agrees: our Universe is 13.7 billion years old." --That is the first tell that they are not concerned with even trying to be truthful. They are more concerned with convincing there is consensus, so if you aren't sure or disagree, you are supposedly "going against everyone". That is just another psycho trick with a lot of empirical science behind it called propaganda. It works often enough, so they use it. That is actual science.

Faith in science is when you believe what the "white coated or authoritative sounding fellows" make up, for money, which then they claim is a Theory, rather than a guess, to make it sound more credible, so people will listen.

It is rather odd that people who have so much faith in science THEORIES, several of which have already been disproved (those just don't know it yet), scoff at faith.

They also say follow the money regarding religion. Also excellent advice regarding so called science. Which could be called science fiction until it is proven.

By the way, there is another theory of the cosmos which requires No black holes which were made up to account for something their favored theory could not. Is it a better theory? Seems to be, since it seems much simpler. If you go back a theory or two and pick a better more accurate theory for how the planets actually move, then you don't need to invent black holes to adjust for the error in the theory you chose.

Yet people suck up what cannot easily be disproved or if someone authoritative sounding says it.

I will never forget a particular chemistry professor. He was fresh out of a prestigious university. He only said a couple things I thought were worth remembering. "I'm gonna go blind!" after a laser he'd been walking in front of for minutes finally clipped him in the eye so he finally saw what we were all chuckling about. Humor it good.

The other far more important was what most professors FAIL at. He stated, "This is only what we think we know at this time, it will likely change."

That is the absolute modern history of science on earth, that what we are convinced of today ...changes tomorrow. Yet people have faith in those Theories.

Much like people having faith that Stocks always going up over the long haul, reference the Dow or SP500. The reality is, they keep changing those indexes, in order for that to happen.

People tell themselves all sorts of things to feel better about what they believe: "I'm making money, therefore I'm successful, so its ok if I lie a little, since I prefer to believe it anyway." Or in the case of certain types, "kill a little or a lot." And now more than I have ever seen in my many years, "The ends justify the means." So we have people in one group thinking they can justify killing people in another group. Or lying about them, if they cannot kill them and get away with it.

Right about now would be a good time for some actual global warming to kick in like they have been lying about for so long. Since a colder period is creeping upon us. If you live long enough, they will claim global cooling is going to devastate the planet as the next warmer period is about to crawl in ...just like they did many years ago. That is what scientists do to science. Much like too many preachers do to God.

If science or faith in science came into existence with theXX a Big Bang, so did faith in God.

If a person cannot tell they are more than their sum of parts ...or desire to deny that, then they are lost and are needy of something to make them comfy about it, which is science. The funny thing is, their ability to deny ...SHOULD show them that they are more than their parts ...except they are too busy denying and distracting themselves with so called science.

What would you think of so called scientists, who get paid via your tax dollars to be scientists, who claim the earth is warming by looking at old computer models which have been proven wrong years ago, way wrong, yet still talk up that wrong like it was a right tasty dish and would lose money and eventually their job if they didn't?

What of any propagandized supposed consensus agreement? If I am right about something, I certainly don't give a rip who agrees and who doesn't. Yet science has shown that many people will change there opinion to agree with the group. Meaning people are too easily manipulated into joining the crowd. People are indoctrinated into not rocking the boat they are in. What if their is treasure beneath them?

Yes, well why Is it not possible that the 'universe', i.e. everything that 'is', that 'exists', is primary and infinite, and always has been? I understand the mythologies of the past that existed for ages before this amazing awareness we now possess, when there were many reasons to posit a 'creator', a 'being' who 'created' all that they perceived out of 'nothing'...... whatever that could mean. How much nothing does it require to create something? Would a 'creator' not have to have a creator in turn?

Other concepts I can't seem to grasp either, such as 'inflation', as it pertains to the early universe...... I know I am woefully uninformed regarding so much, but is there any concrete evidence to support these ideas or are they rather theories with some good arguing points?

you are correct, the big bang theory is only partially right, the entire universe did not come from a tiny singularity that is ludacris, the universe has always been there and is infinite the things that go on inside the universe are so vast that a young species like humans see "X" amount of distance and assume thats all there is. i dont deny there was an explosion sure there are explosions in the universe all the time and there always will be, black holes suck in matter then explode it all back out again its a cycle not creation. and as far as "GOD" goes. come on people religion is nothing but hope's, dream's, and a huge human scam for profit. how does some dude wearing sandals and a man dress floating around in -200C create infinity? lol. physics students will come on here and write a bunch of big words trying to impress someone, but they are being taught by mere humans. sure students try to teach me that the earth is flat again why dont you. dont bother none of us will live long enough to have the answers and your math wont reach far enough...ever.

coryn
- 01/12/2015 at 02:36

Yes, and it takes a lifetime to sort it all out. It's a shame that anthropology isn't taught to the younger grades at school, so that students would have something to learn from, and to learn while they are young. My bet is that the humans will become extinct before they stop killing each other.

gwhosubex
- 10/19/2014 at 15:58

Very fascinating theories. After watching so many space and physics documentaries, you end up hearing the same stuff. But this was quite fresh. I only wish they went deeper in to the theory, and explained in more detail, especially the logic behind some of the claims and descriptions.

Why two membranes, or are there more? Why 7 dimensions? How about some superficial descriptions and key points behind the math? Stuff like that would be very juicy indeed.

I'm not a fan of morgan freeman for space videos. It's like he just reads a script. Of course he doesn't really understand the profundities of it, thus he can't present it like Neil Tyson can, or even like any passionate scientists ever interviewed in a space documentary can.

The biggest thing we can glean from studying everything about the why and how life and the universe exists, is simply so far that we do not know!

Yet, as humans we are compelled by our curiosity to know the answers to these questions and so we search the mysterious cosmos to see if the answer is out there.

The fact is that the universe and life does exist at least to our senses and so the question still remains why all this as opposed to nothing? And if we did come from nothing then why do we not at least have a remembrance of that coming from nothing into existence?

I just tend to feel for myself there is a reason for everything including an ultimate purpose for humanity and the universe that is beyond our understanding at this time. If there is I am sure we will find it when we shed our earthly shell body at death.

24:25 "There is a conventional wisdom in the field and people are very slow to adopt new ideas, and frankly many people have built their careers on the status quo, and they don't want a new idea coming along and rocking the boat." - Neil Turok.

This, together with knowledge filtering (the very act of deciding what information is relevant) creates a scope within which Science is practised. Cosmology, as much as I love it, is theory built upon theory, decorated with postulates and conjecture. These philosophical postulates and conjectures are the attempt to undo the limitations of scope, implemented by Science.

Science, therefore, without philosophical enquiry is blinkered and restrained. Good Science can be Great Science when not so constrained. Without Philosophy, Science would quickly stagnate in its institutions, through proposals of rigid axioms. Philosophy may not be a Natural Science ...Philosophy, instead, is the air with which Science breathes.

I can not think of another area where Science and Philosophy come together so well, as they do in Cosmology.

too true.maybe i will be wrong for my lifetime but right in someone else's

Mir Khan
- 10/22/2013 at 20:50

theory and study of cosmology go hand in hand but the view of clear night sky is magical by itself so i call it art and not science.and the fact we can discuss it with so many details is bonus.they say our gallaxy is on a collision course with a bigger gallaxy and when both will dance to become one not a single star would collide .the space and numbers are huge to wrap mind around yet theories keep on piling.

gwhosubex
- 10/19/2014 at 15:59

The scientific method is a product of philosophy. That's the accurate, concise, precise way of describing it without getting poetic or ambiguous with language.

There is a lot of invalid, philosophy as well. Like
1) platonic forms (unfalsifiable, and the alternative is demonstrable)...
2) relativism (because if everything is relative, that means so is that statement, which unravels the entire thing via the contradiction).
3) what people think is "philosophy" i.e. definitional word games that ignore actual fundamental physics.

Gordon Giroux
- 08/05/2013 at 01:01

i dont think the theory is right. i think what they think started the whole universe was just the explosion of a super massive black hole, a cycle that goes on forever.

expand, collapse.. possibly... as long as energy isn't truly lost or wasted. Dark matter/energy, Y U NO EXPLAINED?

Gordon Giroux
- 08/21/2013 at 00:21

i dont have all the answers but i picture the universe more like a fire works show,the black hole symbolized by the end of each burst. a cycle, isnt that how life really is?the black holes eat galaxies till they cant take anymore then explode life out into space once more to form new galaxies and therefore the possibilities of life, the entire universe witch nobody can even see the edge of just exploded into existence from a microscopic point is just stupid and defies physics does it not? where did the energy for an explosion come from if there was absolutely nothing there? absurd. {"the earth is flat"} sound familiar?

Guest
- 08/21/2013 at 01:53

they say the universe is expanding but there is no edge there to define so to me it just means stuff inside the universe is moving away from us

Gordon Giroux
- 08/21/2013 at 13:39

the big bang and expansion theory is wrong, throw it out it's ruining the rest of your calculations,assumptions ,and theories. other galaxies are not really moving away from us, the fabric of space and everything in it at our vantage point is being sucked into the black hole at the center of our galaxy giving the apperance of everything moving away

Gordon Giroux
- 08/22/2013 at 00:06

the big bang and expansion theory is wrong, throw it out it's ruining the rest of your calculations,assumptions ,and theories. other galaxies are not really moving away from us, the fabric of space and everything in it at our vantage point is being sucked into the black hole at the center of our galaxy giving the apperance of everything moving away

samus
- 08/31/2013 at 21:10

I'm not sure about the big bang, but expansion theory is not wrong. The Doppler effect explains how the universe is expanding as light waves coming toward Earth from other galaxies are a red shift, showing that other universes are indeed moving away from us. If galaxies are moving towards a black hole at the center of our galaxy, galaxies further out than ours would be moving toward us, which would be shown by a blue shift in the Doppler effect. This is not the case though.

Gordon Giroux
- 09/09/2013 at 01:03

they cant all be moving away from us,that would suggest us as the source of the big bang. perhaps a supermasive blackhole exploded at the source and thats why the nearby galaxy's are moving away, nobody has witnessed a blackhole explosion yet,perhaps they are large enough perhaps its the source and this goes on through out the universe causing expansions over and over in many different area's. so if you were a young species inside one of those area's you might be led to believe you are the center of it all. just like we did when we thought the universe revolved around us

Cody
- 09/13/2013 at 07:56

awesome theory, one thing I would point out though is that other galaxies are not just moving away from us, but from each other as well.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/02/2013 at 07:11

yeah im wrong there, they could indeed be all moving away from us. some closer, some farther away from us. i will edit that out. my theory has gained a bit of support it would seem. love this stuff!

Dec Tree Trunk Duff
- 10/15/2013 at 23:28

For the creation of our universe, i believe, we need to think from different dimentions, which is pretty much impossible so we will never know.
i recommend a animated film called flat land that will give you some idea. really fun and eyeopening.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/17/2013 at 19:31

i just dont believe in the creation of a universe it doesn't feel right or make sense. its way too big to have come from nothing. i think it was always there. the stuff inside it is what gets destroyed and reborn over time. a cycle that always has and always will be ongoing.

yellowmattercustard
- 10/17/2013 at 22:01

I keep coming to a jarring halt at the word "believe". Not that I don't have beliefs. Mine are just better than yours.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/17/2013 at 23:41

ok then?

yellowmattercustard
- 10/18/2013 at 00:03

Only evidence will tell.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/18/2013 at 02:14

and you have evidence that the universe exploded into existence do you? nah, mine are better than yours.

docoman
- 10/18/2013 at 06:00

Hmm, it's incorrect to say the universe "came from nothing". According to the theory it came from the singularity. As real a thing as what's in / causing the black holes.

Here's a theory mate... the mass in a black hole is the same as the singularity before our 'big bang'. If it acquires enough matter/energy to reach a critical mass, it releases it's energy and mass and explodes in a new 'big bang' for a newly created universe.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/22/2013 at 06:31

yeah ok once upon a time there was a tiny pin-point singularity that decide to explode into a never ending universe one day....really? cmon do millions of people really think that? we mayzel go back to earth is flat too then the hell with it. something had to give the singularity mass or it would not exist? witch is why it does not make sense. a never ending cycle of black holes exploding and reshaping the universe around it, now that does make sense.

docoman
- 10/23/2013 at 17:51

What you describe in your last sentence is pretty much what my idea to you was, except I was giving you a possible mechanism for how that might work. Black holes 'suck in matter', as things cross the event horizon they 'disappear', the gravity is too strong for even light to escape anymore. I proposed that as they accumulate matter, there may be a point where they reach a critical mass, and explode into a new universe, it becoming that particular universes 'singularity'.
Just an idea.

Gordon Giroux
- 10/23/2013 at 20:22

yeah i think we will slowly start to see changes to the big bang theory. it will become more of a multiple small bang theory i predict.

Mir Khan
- 09/06/2013 at 22:49

energy and matter remains the same always irrespective of the numbers of big bangs .what if the complete universe is just one of many and space is big enough so all can expand independently like electrons in atom.why cant be there more universes then there are stars in our universe.

Gordon Giroux
- 09/09/2013 at 01:09

well thats kinda what im saying i think a supermassive black hole exploded and created what we as a young species think is the entire universe because we are too primitive to see beyond it, and this happens all over like a fireworks show kinda, or a handfull of stones tossed into calm water, i just refuse to believe that infinity wasnt there one day and then was the next...it's just something we came up with because we simply are not smart enough yet. i think the old earth is flat story was a good indicator of that ,lol

Mir Khan
- 10/22/2013 at 06:18

i like the fireworks show theory.maybe if we can teach dolphins to us maths formulas online they might do better.nice one gordon

astromann
- 11/06/2012 at 09:39

Any scientist who still subscribes to the moon landing, has little credibility and must be viewed with scepticism. Elements of political posturing in the program were also a turn off (what an earth has the South African apartheid regime got to do with anything?)

You are clearly a dolt, considering we can see the evidence with a good telescope, and there's endless third-party evidence. Maybe our government landed on the moon and planted fake evidence just to fake the landing, so that uneducated rednecks that never payed any attention in school can sound smart on the internet. Maybe?

Guest
- 08/21/2013 at 00:47

oops sorry man wrong reply

timbo
- 02/17/2014 at 11:18

If man stepped on the moon back in the 60's why a) have not returned
since 1972? b) so they built a International space station orbiting the
earth in space, heres an idea: if we did land on the moon then why
havent we built a moon station yet? makes sense and is what would
naturally happen, weve got some in antarctica...nothing crazy, just four
walls and a launch pad wouldve done it..for the next mission? not too much to ask for after
12 missions...maybe a starbucks? hard to believe man has
landed on the moon and all we got is a couple lunar samples to show for
it

Brycce Krick
- 07/28/2014 at 01:28

I know im really late but i can't stand people who think like this...
a) because its not necessary, we've already been six times.
b)a moon space station only makes sense if we're going to use it as a refueling point for further exploration, which we aren't doing yet. it is not what would naturally happen, that's not how it works. there needs to be a reason to do something ridiculously expensive and with little difference other than sheer cost from an earth based space station. you clearly have very little knowledge of how anything works, its not "just four walls and a launch pad", its much more complex than that. next time you think of making yourself look like a tool you should take the time to think about reasons for why things don't happen instead of denying facts "because we haven't been back" or "because we don't have a moon station".

edgedweller
- 07/28/2014 at 03:11

hmmm since you're a self declared 'expert' and you have a great knowledge on how things work, lets go on..then...where was all the fuel storage required for the 400,000+MILE journey einstein? please point me to the 'facts' ..or the propaganda you hold as facts that are central to your faith which is more like it..could you also comment on the requirement of a 'space moon buggy' eg. mobility required on the moon

Brycce Krick
- 07/28/2014 at 15:07

fuel storage for the moon trips was on earth, cape canaveral, as if it wasn't obvious enough. you must really be trying to make yourself look stupid here man, just stop. jesus f--king christ, people like you are something special.

also, never said i was an expert, just another thing that makes you look like an i*iot.

Brycce Krick
- 07/29/2014 at 03:16

oh whats that? i made you look like the jackass you really are? oh my!

next time don't come to this site and insult the rest of us with your uneducated, "my-IQ-is-a-full-2-points", fact-denying drivel.

Gordon Giroux
- 08/21/2013 at 00:50

myth busters were able to recreate all the weird shadows and strange flag movements also, they think the landing was real, i do too.

Gordon Giroux
- 09/11/2013 at 02:27

derp had a far better answer, a bit rude though lol, been thinking bout getting a telescope actually.

How I've come to understand it is this.
*But I cannot and will not say for certain that this is indeed what actually, truly happened seeing as vast armies of researchers and scientists are still fighting to figure it all out so take what I'm about to type for what its worth.

What we think of as empty space is not actually empty at all, but a seething, bubbling soup of exotic particles that "pop" in and out of existence during time-scales so tiny and in spaces so small that they can hardly be said to even really exist. Current understandings of sub-atomic physics and mathematics indicate to us that our entire universe could have simply "popped" into existence from one of these quantum-level fluctuations and begun from there.

This could be what caused the big-bang, a random quantum fluctuation which gave rise to an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense packet of energy: a singularity(maybe) which then grew through the process of inflation and became the universe we see today.

I hope this rather over-simplified possibility answered your question ^_^

DERP
- 08/07/2013 at 08:50

This^^^, along with all the evidence we have, and all that our small, tiny, pale blue dot can ever hope to understand.

Ninth Legion
- 01/21/2013 at 19:47

Quantum mechanics allows events to happen without a cause, in fact effect could precede cause. Nothing caused the Big Bang because an event needs time in which to occur, and time itself was a product of the Big bang, along with Space and radiation (energy). Nothing could exist prior to the Big bang because an event requires both time and space in which to occur.

oQ
- 08/07/2013 at 15:29

what was that nothingness?
1i

Dec Tree Trunk Duff
- 10/15/2013 at 23:33

what was the nothing ness? is that a serious question

oQ
- 10/16/2013 at 07:43

Nothing could exist prior to the Big Bang? How about "something" that is beyond space-time as we understand it now?

Achems_Razor
- 10/16/2013 at 15:01

What is your "something" that can exist beyond spacetime.

DERP
- 08/07/2013 at 08:48

Can someone explain??? Are you serious? Assuming you aren't a troll, I would start with SCIENCE. That attempts to explain, and we are always searching farther, further, and deeper for a better understanding. Seriously, go to the library and grab anything that isn't in the "new age" or "religion" section. Or, if you want the quick, easy answer... SPOILER ALERT... it's "42".

Greendrive
- 03/16/2012 at 17:48

Cosmology is based on huge extrapolations and has minimal relation to the experimental physics. That's why for the most part it is not even science. I don't recommend anyone especially in science take seriously statements that "every cosmologists and astronomer agrees that the age of universe is...". Cosmology is an approximation to science and probably never be science since cannot be tested for the most part. There are alternatives to the traditional big bang theories and most cosmologists and astronomers know about that. I am not a particular believer in one or another beautiful cosmological construction, and I don't kneel before complex cosmological equations)) I repeat, it is not science!

"Modern scientific cosmology is usually considered to have begun in 1917 with Albert Einstein's publication of his final modification of general relativity."

"Recent observations made by the COBE and WMAP satellites observing this background radiation have effectively, in many scientists' eyes, transformed cosmology from a highly speculative science into a predictive science, as these observations matched predictions made by a theory called Cosmic inflation, which is a modification of the standard big bang model."

In the determination that the data from the wmap how was it determined that the microwaves received were not from super nova explosions or some other explosions? As I find it very hard to believe that remnants from the supposed big bang could be detected from an event that is said to have occurred billions of years ago in a universe that is still expanding while maintaining that the universal speed limit is the speed of light, thereby the universe would have to be both finite and a whole lot smaller than is commonly accepted at present or the speed of light speed limit is just so much nonsense which is where I tend to lean toward as the gravity of a singularity overcomes light speed as light cannot escape from it, therefore as has been stated it accelerates everything within its grasp beyond the speed of light! Honestly, which lie is the truth?

I find it hard to enjoy these brane world and multiple dimension theories because they are just in the imagination of these scientists they don't have any proof to back it up! its like not even science anymore if all they can do is imagine

The reason it's called Dark matter is because it's an unknow source of gravity. Asking what it is made of when it's a term covering an unknown entity is not going to give you an answer.

Orion
- 09/20/2011 at 22:16

From the comments ranging from the Monotheist God perspective to the "BIG BANG Singularity" opinion you can see how the perversion in thought that is Judeo-Christian contemplation has seriously screwed up logical thinking in the world. Science seriously entertaining a theory that can never be proven and only works in mathematical calculations shows how the linear thinking of Christianity has been a determent to scientific though in the western world. Science in the west arose out of the Dark Age Christian mind and to think that that thought process did not have an influence in the later Renaissance is detrimental to understanding "Truth". Want a better picture of the universe and theories on reality, get rid of the Creator, Linear, Christian view of the universe in science and maybe we could get somewhere.

you have under stand big bang is still a THEORY, thats why every you will see its still called a "big band theory" not science fact. If you ask any sane scientist around the world to bet all his wealth on this theory, no one will do it.

Andy
- 08/25/2012 at 19:12

Learn what a theory is, then come back and try again. It does not mean the same as "as yet untested hypothesis" which is what you seem to imply from this....

ShelbyMcGregor
- 07/02/2013 at 21:22

I don't care that this comment is 2 years old, because you are probably still as ignorant now as you were in 2011.

A scientific theory is based on FACTS. Proven FACTS. A layman's theory (as in, religious peoples' theories, the theories of the uneducated) is one that is completely made up and meant to suit how someone feels the world works.

Big Bang here Big Bang there..... it's becoming the new Dogma on which a new religion will be build and the others have to adapt to it or disappear....
sounds like samo old BS story to me....
What about the Universe is infinite, yes, 13.7 billion years ago there might have been an event still affecting things tday, but hey!!! let's go easy...

I love how people think there must be a beginning and who or what created the first what :) with infinity there is no beginning , or end. there was no original anything because everything always was and always will be. so relax and enjoy the ride!! :)

We cant assert anything is infinite nor can we claim its not, we cant prove or disprove a creator as well. In fact all you can be sure of is that you exist because you think, but even this can be an illusion..

sunil kumar
- 08/10/2011 at 22:03

entire universe was once packed tightly into an unimaginably dense and tiny space, known as a “singularity.”

Singuality ? how it came to existence ? who packed the entire universe into unimaginably dense and tiny space ? Is it packed by it self ?

This imaginable thing only possible only if there exists supreme being whom we call God.

good questions, if you really want an answer I suggest you either get a degree and contribute to research or just wait for the research to be done.

Your current answer has one major flaw. How it came to existence? That question, should also be applied to your answer, "god". Wouldn't you agree?

sunil kumar
- 08/12/2011 at 00:46

I do not agree with you, First you need to understand who can be "god".When i say "god" he is not like you and me with limited power and ability. god can do any thing everything with out limits . There are no boundaries or rules or limitations for him.

avd420
- 08/12/2011 at 01:26

@Sunil

But who created God?

Achems_Razor
- 08/10/2011 at 22:42

Words of god? Seek truth? your link gives the words of man out of a book without any proof. Circular logic as usual. Doesn't mean squat.

sunil kumar
- 08/12/2011 at 00:32

You are the proof Achems, your existence is the proof, all the world around you is the proof of his existence. You will never know about god unless you are a good living being . Living good is the only way to know god.
How can a person like you and me with very little knowledge can knew about a supreme being with abundance of knowledge.

Chad7
- 07/18/2011 at 22:31

The one problem i find with the big bang and other theories like it is where did the original singularity come from? Scientific law states that something can't be created out of nothing so the possibility of a singularity existing is zero based upon what we know today.

ya but the big bang theory isn't trying to explain creation just the earliest moment of existence. Were it came from is a HOLE other question.

Chad7
- 07/28/2011 at 21:05

So why do people use it to shoot down religion saying that it explains creation when it so obviously doesnt? Then when you try to explain it to them that it doesnt actually rule out religion or the existance of god they still act as if it does.

thanks for the reply by the way

David Foster
- 07/28/2011 at 21:43

When I looked at the first Hubble deep space field images, I noticed a very peculiar thing.. Every bit of it looked just the same as any other space picture! And yet, the accompanying commentary always seeks to explain what you are looking at as being something entirely different.

The reason I bring this up is twofold:

1) There is no way that fully formed galaxies could have reached those distances in the supposed fourteen-or-so billion years since the big bang, and:

2) The feeble attempt to re-interpret what is clearly visible to the naked eye might just as well be termed "religious fanaticism".

swordsling04
- 08/13/2011 at 07:55

Theoretically, the only thing allowed to travel faster than the SOL (Speed of Light) is the Expansion of the universe itself. In the early universe, rapid expansion physicists call "Inflation" ocurred where the universe expanded extremely rapidly, faster than light. That is how the galaxies are sooo far away even though the universe is 13.7 or however many billion years old.... Is that what you were talking about?

Andrew Vallier
- 12/02/2011 at 21:10

your comment "There is no way that fully formed galaxies could have reached those distances in the supposed fourteen-or-so billion years since the big bang" i think is wrong sir. i read that its the dark energy or matter that is speeding up the expansion of the universe and pulling the galaxies out with it because its filling in the space between here and those galaxies. i think this doc may have mentioned it as well. it is possible.

swordsling04
- 08/13/2011 at 07:50

There is a theory known as Brane theory where (this is a simple explanation, you would have to look it up) you could imagine two bubbles (branes) colliding, When the bubbles collide, they don't burst but sort of mesh together. What is in the middle is our universe. Imagine an 8, if you made the top and bottom come down and up respectively, just a little bit, then they would overlap and what is in the middle is what im talking about being our universe. There are more theories, this is just one of them.,

greyspoppa
- 08/29/2011 at 20:44

LOL Now your back to zero, where did these branes come from?

Si Belsi
- 07/14/2011 at 01:54

what i get from this doc is: strange kind of men exist in this world that prefer talking about parallel universes,big bangs,relativism etc instead of women,cars or soccer when they come together..

why are you watching it then, and why are you on this website to begin with? some men just have a level of intelligence that you will never know of. your comment proves your ignorance.

Terry Canam
- 06/15/2011 at 09:18

The seven other dimentions in M theory dont neccesarily need to be so small we can't see them, they could be so large we dont notice them ...

Typing while watching :P, M theory might explain the ignition of our reality, but it only pushes the idea of origins a little further away. What did the two branes that collided contain before they brought us into existance? Is this another example of symmetry in our universe/reality, a universe/antiunverse realaity/antireality?

if the brane universes are cyclicle; they touch,there's an infusion of energy and then expansion and after some time the branes cool and smooth out, then touch again starting it all over again.. it essentially means that the all the stars burn out everything becomes cold. the universe dies to start anew at the next singularity.

There is very little evidence for the BB - the CMB would be there from almost any origin - it's just a diffuse energy throughout space. The acceleration (which is probably wrong) provides no evidence of a BB. Inflation? it's ridiculous. Even Hubble didn't believe in the expansion.

Hubble was such a non-believer in the expansion of the universe that he wrote Hubble's law. Moron. Please stop paying attention to silly websites and open a physics, cosmology, astronomy or history text book.

memoiandi
- 07/12/2011 at 15:53

Very little evidence for the BB?? Really? OK, you've just shown me that you should not be listened to. Where are you getting your information? Oh wait, let me guess: religious, ideology driven websites..... Move along, move along, these aren't the droids we're looking for.

Joe
- 01/23/2011 at 00:07

D-K qoute: "there is a difference between evidence and proof"

I completely agree. It is very difficult to prove anything. Even somewhat basic concepts in science are revised and possibly discarded based on new knowledge and technologies. I would agree that the scientific laws are very near to the concept of "truth".

However, continuously arguing over the nature of the creation of the universe is what the Greeks would have called hubris. I really don not get the rabid arguments from either side especially since I'm sure none of you really have a dog in the race (ie you're not a career astrophysicist or a member of the clergy).

My point is: get over yourself. Those of us who are truly open-minded are sick and tired of being made heretics by both sides of the debate. Face the facts people - we don't know nothin'. It is ALL speculation, a story, a guess, and yes you have to have faith to believe in either argument. The point is to be open to new information and points of view, not to criticize someone who disagrees with your perception of "how things really are." This is the only way that we will evolve past the disagreements and petty arguments that stifle us from getting into space and exploring things that we can realistically wrap our heads around - like the nearby planets.

Just imagine if we all spent the time that we normally spend arguing and instead did something that would result in the donation of time and/or money to an effort to expand our space program. Of course that might require a bit more enlightenment on all of our parts.

I like what you said, but not in the way that you mean it. We will always have open-minded people and people who believe in something. It's our oposite and our oposite must exist for all of us to exist. We are the check to their balance our Up to their down if you will. Is part of a system of control? Hell I dunno man you tell me. I guess if we all thought open mindedly about finding the truth then maybe we would find it and more then likely there's something that doesn't want us to find it and that's why things work the way they work. That's why we'll always be guessing.

mithras
- 01/07/2011 at 01:29

@ Frank (2nd comment).. Uh, its called a narrator? And why, may i ask, do you find Morgan Freeman an incompetent speaker?

Has he not an impressive track record?...

Has he not won several Academy awards?...

If you truly want to make a statement, do so with solid, logical, well built reason. I think I speak for most of us, by saying that Mr. Morgan Freeman is a truly fascinating man with a remarkable knack for explaining scientific research in a way the general public can- and will- understand; and that,in the event of his death, the world would lose one of the greatest actors ever know to man!

But somehow a conscious God popping out of no-where and no-when makes perfect sense.

lightningCS
- 07/13/2011 at 05:15

I will never understand why people think they aren't related. I'm open to both sides and even other possibilities because no one knows for sure. Which is the first thing any smart person can do is realize that they don't know everything then you will gather information and make your own choice. But if I belive either exists I have to entertain that they can exist together.

avd420
- 07/13/2011 at 05:51

One is a theory with evidence and the other is a theory with none.

David Foster
- 07/28/2011 at 22:23

@avd420.. There is no evidence for a singularity. That's why they call it a "theory". So far, it's no more provable than the garden of Eden. That's why science spends Billions of Trillions of Gazillions of dollars to build useless s**t like hadron colliders, because the world is starting to get impatient.

Darren Fox
- 11/23/2011 at 03:43

so a "god" just created himself and then created an unimaginable massive universe for just us to live in and worship him? makes perfect sense...

earthling
- 12/09/2010 at 09:48

Well, Laurie, you've done a fantastic job of making us Canadians look absolutely insane. I have, however, learned something from you here today; I will NOT put my onions or potatoes in the fridge.
*LOL @ emanuel*

I just watched this documentary( i always look for achems comments for insight) and WOW i am blown away...Work today was miserable because i was up till 5am thinking about the big bang and this tantalizing M theory.

As I have said before and as Epicurus stated above, Zero Point Energy and Perpetual Motion look good on paper!

The equations LOOK solid, but it just does not work in the real world. Many, many scientists have tried it, including Edison, who was kind of a whack-job... trying to make a phone to talk to the dead...

But, he did direct the very first movie version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" so...

Here is something interesting... as it seems quiet right now, and as I read, "Cat's Cradle".. by Kurt Vonnegut. I learned this story from the Romani...

The Romani, have a legend that says when jesus was being crucified, the Romans had a Nine Inch Nail that they intended to drive through jesus' heart while he was on the cross.

Well, a little gypsy boy stole the nail from the Romans to give to his father... (there is a whole variation of this theme here, but I will not go into it...)

As christ was dying on the cross, he looked down at the Romani and said, according to the gypsies, "Because you stole the nail that would have killed me... I will always allow the Romani people to steal and it will not be a sin for you... etc."

It is a convoluted story, I mean, the guy died anyway, right? But, it is a justification of their "right to steal"

And I can get behind that... I mean, I get that many, many people use this mythology to justify their bad acts.

I think you broke the code there, Epicurus. And, I feel for these people, I mean, the job market is brutal, and so many predators are taking advantage of people with these pyramid schemes...

But you know, as I was reading over these posts, that silly magic energy bracelet comes to mind. You see them all over the place. They are the new "copper bracelet" that cures arthritis, (a very old quackery that re-surfaces every ten years or so...)

I have seen the commercials and the claims are purely wild and outrageously spurrious!

Critical thought DEMANDS that you ask things like, "Ok. What is the power source, exactly? Are their batteries that I will need to replace? And exactly what 'energy' is it using on my body? Microwaves? I got enough of them from my wireless networks and phones... Ultraviolet radiation? Infra-red? That was proven hundreds of years ago to have no effects on human tissue, whatsoever..." etc...

"from Laurie
I don’t have a magic wand where do you get off saying that. I have a Zero Point Energy wand. It has nothing to do with pagan worship and witches. It’s a medical tool it removes pain and changes the molecular structure of water and negates chemicals in food. It’s the medicine of the future."

If this device you're describing functions as you say it does, it's not really medicine. Also, I did a little search online, no company that distributes these things has subjected them to 3rd party research. No credentials, no scientific study whatsoever.

The science behind it seems a bit iffy as well.

I'll agree that atomic restructuring and atomic manipulation will become available in the future, but this is not that. This is probably hokum.

Wait. Weren’t you talking about jesus and christianity in another thread?

I mean, magic wands are very pagan. Christ-y folks hate them… and have often burned women at the stake for having them…

Which way are you going, here?

from Laurie
I don't have a magic wand where do you get off saying that. I have a Zero Point Energy wand. It has nothing to do with pagan worship and witches. It's a medical tool it removes pain and changes the molecular structure of water and negates chemicals in food. It's the medicine of the future.

Oh, I see. I have been reading your posts and I see that you want it all!

You want to go to Heaven but still be a pagan, magical princess. I get it.

Well, you can't. The bible says you are either in the camp of jesus or the camp of Satan and there is no in between...

So, if you believe the horror novel, then you can't have magic wands.

Or, you can walk away from the whole silly idea and be a real person. There is always that option...

But, I was kicked out of a coven for this same reason. The Witches wanted to include christ in the ceremony and I was like... "NO!" jesus hated us and I hate him, why would we include his loser-ass in a Sabbat?

I respect Charles B. because he stands for that conviction. I do not respect people that try and "mamby-pamby" and fudge their way through life.

Every time when people couldnt explain something they turned to God. So it is now - we cant explain something and appear people who say that it all was made by a creator. Some time ago Thunder was explained as God and many other things, like rain, asteroids, earthquakes. I think we must keep trying to find the answer with the help of science instead of having a universal answer for all questions - God.

“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?… Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” - "Stephen Hawking"

@Nick
I agree with you. The universe and nature all are proof of a Creator that I call God.

The world's living prophet has warned and pleaded that the people return to God, who has said again:
"I the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise. (D&C 82:10)

The trouble with the world is they do not want a prophet teaching righteousness. They want a prophet that will tell them that what they are doing is right, no mater how wrong it may be...

We do not lack a prophet what we lack is a listening ear by the people and a determination to live as God has commanded. That is all we need . The way has been made perfectly clear.

"If there is one word that describes our world, it would be “consistency”; and because of this, it is predictable. The sun shines, rain falls, and rivers flow to the sea. Some things are consistent in their variability, such as wind blowing from different directions. Careful study reveals certain patterns, and we call these “rules” or “laws of nature”. As we understand things better, we acquire a body of knowledge and at some point, when this information is comprehensive, we call it a Science. We hence have Botany, Zoology, Physics, and Chemistry etc. which are just observations categorized for easy reference.

“Scientific Method” describes the rules we apply which we have found helps us best to arrive at a true understanding of what we observe. It also allows others to repeat our experiments and confirm our findings. This body of techniques only works because of order that exists in the universe. An example of disorder would be randomly fluctuating magnitude of the Force of Gravity (the weight of things keep changing unpredictably. Think about the effect of this on everyday life. How would we engage in commerce or draw up construction plans or recipes). Consistency suggests a force that creates and maintains things, preventing it from degenerating, and falling into disorder. It directs us to the awareness of a creator.

Evolution is based on the paradox that disorder or random and unpredictable events regularly produce outcomes of complex order. If our world “evolved” haphazardly in this manner, all outcomes would have to similarly display randomness and disorder, the prerequisite for the process of evolution to continue, and hence there will never be a stable state in which a “scientific method” could be developed or applied.

If evolution did result in “order”, it would be a self destructive process precluding the evolution of highly complex life forms. Stability and order would have been achieved at a primitive level. If evolution is a structured ordered process, who, or what is responsible for the order under which evolution can progress?

Contrary to the claims usually made, Science and the Scientific Method do not refute the existence of God, they confirm it. "

Like Randy said, if it was just a psychosomatic pain, of course it makes sense that the "wand" would "heal" it. If it was caused by his mind, and he believed in his wife, even on some slight sub-conscious hopeful level...

@ Randy
[Quote] And the bible (every version) is meaningless drivel. It doesn’t even make good toilet paper, frankly, and not to put too fine a point on it. [/Quote]

I dunno, a bunch of the old bibles that were too old to be used any longer were once in my mother's closet, because even if it's old and ragged "you don't throw the word away". They were pretty good tinder for starting the fire in the fireplace for my marshmallows! The wood was a little wet, but I framed it with that old paper and it went up pretty quick!

Well, I thought it would be mean so I didn't go there, but as Epicurus already did...

But, I would add, lovers seldom tell each other the WHOLE truth.

Your husband loves you and wants you to be happy, and wants to support your "hobbies", I assume. Assuming that, he may, either consiously or not, feel inclined to tell you what makes you happy. Just a thought.

This is why when I write a story, or sculpt or paint something, I must take my wife's opinion with a grain of salt. She will always say how WONDERFUL it is, because she loves me and sees me through those eyes. Better to get critiqued by strangers, or people who do NOT like me, LOL!

Finally, something I learned in med school: over 40 years of study, all over the world, have shown that the most psychosomatic pains most often associated with stress, or some other psychological pathology are head and back pains.

That does NOT mean that the pain is not real! Just that it yeilds much more easily to suggestion...

I had no idea Laurie's ideas were original. The crazy church I grew up in taught us that god knew us before we were born. Now the different preachers vary on whether we were with God himself before being born or whether he just knew us and we were floating around somewhere in the void or whatever... but apparently he knew us. They have a scripture for it somewhere. I'll call up the priest and ask for you guys.

laurie all your answers presuppose that your belief is true but you still havent provided evidence why you believe these myths to be any more true than the myths attributed to many many religions over the years.

Laurie you mention Kolob, are you LDS?

you said:

At a time when it appears that the wicked are about to destroy all flesh from off the face of the earth , the Lord will quicken the righteous and take them up from the earth for their safety. He will then change the surface of the planet. Mountains will be leveled and valleys raised. The seas will be driven into the north, and the continents will come together as they were before the days of Peleg. The earth will stagger in its orbit around the sun and finally whirl out of the solar system completely. As it races back toward Kolob the stars will appear to be falling from heaven. Once the earth is established in its new environment it will be surrounded by light. There will be no more day and night, no more weeks, months, or change of seasons. All these devices for measuring time will be gone. It will seem as though there is “time no more”."

do you have ANY ANY ANY evidence to support this magical story of make believe? and if you say the bible im going to lose my mind..lol the bible is NOT evidence of anything because the bible is not historically accurate enough to be referenced.

Are you the ruling elite of mainstream science.
Lets talk science
If vaccum particles existed we'd vanish into oblivion. The vaccun is nothing more than massless charge. The vaccum is a pre-physical state of matter. Zero Point Energy is essentially anti gravity. Mass creates gravity. Vaccum is the lack of mass " lack of doesn't mean opposite" The opposite of mass is not anti matter. Empty space is wa is actually called Dark Energy. If something is at Zero Point it still has to move through time. Can it be time that makes electrons spin. Amega Global is the only company to have invented a Zero Point Energy product.

Ever exercise? Ever try to increase muscle mass? Be grateful for the law of gravity that allows you to build muscles. It is an opposing force.
Satan is an opposing force. Why is his opposing force needed? To build faith. One day to God is a thousand years for us. The day is coming that Satan will be bound. Who are we to rush God.

At a time when it appears that the wicked are about to destroy all flesh from off the face of the earth , the Lord will quicken the righteous and take them up from the earth for their safety. He will then change the surface of the planet. Mountains will be leveled and valleys raised. The seas will be driven into the north, and the continents will come together as they were before the days of Peleg. The earth will stagger in its orbit around the sun and finally whirl out of the solar system completely. As it races back toward Kolob the stars will appear to be falling from heaven. Once the earth is established in its new environment it will be surrounded by light. There will be no more day and night, no more weeks, months, or change of seasons. All these devices for measuring time will be gone. It will seem as though there is "time no more".

Chaldian myth, of the flood.
The diety Cronos appeared to him in a vision,and warned him that upon the fifteenth day of the month Desius, there would be a flood.

The legends of Moses leading the children of Isreal out of Eygpt is a re-telling of the story of Baddhus, the sun-god,
!-Bible Myths, T.W. Doane p. 22
2-ibid p. 51.
3-Apol. 1 ch, xx, xx1, xx11.
4-ibid p. 411
5=Origen; Contro Celsu, bk, 1,ch 1x.

GOD HAS KILLED MANY MANY THINGS THROUGHOUT HISTORY BECAUSE HE DIDNT LIKE THEM,

The Lord is not a God of hate. Could we not agree to disagree. The day when the righteous indignation of the Lord will be poured out upon the wicked, do not mean that it is done in a spirit of vindictive wrath. Rather it is the role of the righteous judge executing judgment in the name of true justice. His anger has been misconstrued. Mercy and Justice are two big powers (eg: we understand gravity, magnetisn) in the universe that are hard to understand. God has to obey those laws ( Mercy and Justice). He is bound by those laws or he would cease to be God. The Lord is totally justified in using his omnipotent powers to impose a righteous judgement on the wicked and execute the penalty that goes with that judgement. He fulfills his role as a God of justice as well as a God of love. The vast majority of mankind elects to debase themselves, plunder the weak, debauch the innocent, murder the defenseless and rob the poor.I'm sure that in His heart he longs for the day that this human corruption will be cleansed from the earth.

god is not making himself known to everyone in the way that would convince them and he knows this yet he still remains undetectable to those people while threatening them

How do you feel threatened? How is God threatening you? Do you feel threatened through things you read in the Bible? Remember that when you read the Bible you can't just play one piano key or eat only one food at a smorgisboard. I can't spell that word I have an excuse I'm French)The Old testament is very hard to understand especially Isaiah. You have to study the cultures of the time to understand it and add prayer for some enlightment. There are missing books in the Bible, there are errors from translations Greek ,Latin English and things removed at the council of Niece. It isn't a book in it's perfect form but it the best book on the word of God. It came to us from the Jews (Israelites)so we can be thankful to them.

GOD HAS KILLED MANY MANY THINGS THROUGHOUT HISTORY BECAUSE HE DIDNT LIKE THEM, WHY NOT SATAN??

if killing the toddler in my example would be murder then god is responsible for every murder in the same way i would be.

you, like i said are either completely ignoring the points of my examples, or you are so dumb/deluded that you dont understand them...

god knows everyones actions and the future...if i put a baby in a room with a gun i would know the most likely outcome, the death of the baby...god knows the likely outcome of everything including all starvation that is happening all rape, the holocaust, all genocide...if he knows of all this stuff and doesnt stop it or allows it, while having the power to stop it, HE is fully 100% responsible and immoral.

and god didnt ALLOW jesus to die on the cross...jesus was god sent down TO SPECIFICALLY die on the cross to shed blood to atone for the original sin of adam and eve, all sins up to that point, and all sins after...god didnt ALLOW that to happen, GOD MADE IT HAPPEN. not the jews, not the romans....GOD.....at least if god is real

in any logical reasonable persons brain, god is no more real than santa clause.

@Laurie you completely missed my point or you chose to ignore it because it offends your delusion.

my point is that you are not really given a choice. you are being threatened with an ultimatum. god is saying believe or else..but even better, god is not making himself known to everyone in the way that would convince them and he knows this yet he still remains undetectable to those people while threatening them...what about all the people who have never heard of this god thing? what about babies that die? what about aborted babies? where do they go?

now imagine if someone came up to you and said they had a book that says if you dont follow its rules you will suffer after death but if you do follow the rules you will be given the best things you can think of after you die?

dont you think you would be suspicious? why are you not suspicious of the bible? dont you think that since death is scary to humans and they dont know what it is they will make up explanations like this, that not only make people feel safe about death but also make bad people think twice about doing bad deeds?

i guess my question to you is WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT?....why do you accept this particular belief structure over others like islam or hinduism or buddhism or jainism or zoroastrianism, or many many many other religions....or even just good ol' objective as can be science???

@Epicurus
if someone came up to you with a gun to your head and asked you to perform oral sex on them or they would shoot you, do you think that would be a CHOICE??

If someone wanted to kill me and my mission on this earth was accomplished and I learned the things I needed to learn then I would die. It is a choice. Myself I would refuse the oral sex so that is a choice. If another woman performed the oral sex I really don't think she would be accountable in God's eyes. However that man would be accountable. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when he meets the Savior at death.

@Epicurus
if i took a toddler and locked him in a room with a gun….i know the outcome will be bloody, i have the power to avoid it, but i allow it to happen anyways….that is your god.

Are you loosing it. Stay calm. Breathe deep. I think you are confused.
Just because God allows Satan to oppose the good doesn't mean that God is responsible for your bad choices. The dead toddler's spirit would go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. However for you the outcome would be much sadder. Killing that toddler is murder. In my country and the US and Europe murder is a criminal offence. You would go to jail and when you die you will be judged for your actions. Murder is not like stealing for which you can repent and bring the item back or pay for it. Murder --you can't give that person back it's life. You are accountable for the murder of the toddler. God is not accountable for your actions. Yes He will allow that toddler to be murdered by you just like He allowed His First Begotten son to be murdered on the cross.

Look @Laurie Robillard... Please don't tell us those stories. We all know them. We've read the Bible. I suppose you did too.

You are by far ignoring what @ Epicurus said and you're not tackling the essence of his arguments.

Laurie Robillard
- 07/23/2010 at 20:29

@Achems Razor07/23/2010 at 04:56

Laurie, why do you go and buy 300$ silver wands to cure your ills and woes, and make your cat younger,

Tynenol-is number one cause of acute liver failure.

Antibiotics are in fact killers of all bacteria in the body, good and bad. so on and so on

You are right. I agree with you.
The food and drug industry is big business. I don't think they want to cure cancer.

The wand has no side effects it gets rid of headaches, bladder infections ( I don't take Tylenols or antibiotics)
Of course you can't just belieive my word for it but if you have an opportunity to experience it go for it.

@ Epicurus You're back. I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.
just got back from the garage getting my gas lines fixed.

if you say evil exists because satan exists i would remind you that 1) god created satan KNOWING the future and what would happen. and 2) in Isiah in the bible god says that HE is responsible for good and evil.

I am aware that Lucifer is a son of God and God is the Father of His spirit and he is our brother and you are my brother and also Jehova (Jesus Christ) is also my brother and yours. Lucifer wasn't always bad he was as the morning stars as quoted in the Bible. God gave him the priesthood. However he made some very bad choices and got puffed up with pride and he spiraled downwards with his followers and wanted to dethrone God to make a long story short. He went beyond the mark and got himself kicked out of Heaven never able to progress or take a mortal body. He is jealous of our body however imperfect you feel it is knowing he can never have one. He makes this earth rain with blood and horror. He can never repent or be forgiven because he went over the mark. Meaning he will never even have the desire to do good, he doesn't have a conscience. He and his followers don't have the light of Christ as we all have. One third of his followers are on the earth meaning there are about seven devils per living person.That is a lot of evil. How many years has he had to study us. He knows all of our human weaknesses.

@Laurie, what makes you think the bible is an accurate description of historcial events?

what evidence do you have to make you believe the magical stories in the bible actually happened?

eireannach asked you an age old question and i shall place here again...i want you to actually think about it and understand it.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is NOT omnipotent. (meaning he isnt all powerful)
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. (meaning he is mean or evil)
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God

listen, if god is able to stop the evil he OUGHT to if he is moral or just or merciful.
If god is unable to stop the evil he cant really be called a god can he?
if he is both able to get of the evil and wants to, then why does it exist?

if you say evil exists because satan exists i would remind you that 1) god created satan KNOWING the future and what would happen. and 2) in Isiah in the bible god says that HE is responsible for good and evil.

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

if someone came up to you with a gun to your head and asked you to perform oral sex on them or they would shoot you, do you think that would be a CHOICE?? if god says you can believe in me or not but i wont give you good enough evidence (and he knows what is good enough evidence for each person if he knows everything) and if you dont believe in me you suffer and are tortured for eternity?

is that a GOOD god? is that really a choice?

what god has done is the exact same as if i took a toddler and locked him in a room with a gun....i know the outcome will be bloody, i have the power to avoid it, but i allow it to happen anyways....that is your god.

Imagine seeing a sign on the seashore that reads: "Danger- whirlpool. No swimming allowed here." We might think that as a restriction. But is it? We still have many choices. we are free to swim somewhere else. we are free to walk along the beach and pick up sea shells. we are free to watch the sunset. We are free to go home. we are also free to ignore the sign and swim in the dangerous place. But once the whirpool has us in its grasp and we are pulled under, we have very few choices. We can try to escape, or we can call for help, but we may drown.

Even though we are free to choose our course of action, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. The consequences, whether good or bad, follow as a natural result of any choice we make (Galatians; Revelation 22:12

Do any of you three smoke? Why don't you give me examples of actions that limit your choice and the actions that give us more freedom.

You ask good intelligent questions but I'm not sure you want an answer. But instead of assuming I will give it my best answer.

We began to make choices as spirit children in our Heavenly Father's presence. Our choices there made us worthy to come to earth. Our Heavenly Father wants us to grow in faith, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all other good things.

Why is opposition necessary?

We cannot choose righteousness unless the opposites of good and evil are placed before us. In order to bring about the eternal purposes of God, there must be "an opposition in all things. If not so... righteousness could not be brought to pass , neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good or bad"

God allows Satan to oppose the good. God said of Satan:
"I caused that he should be cast down;
"And he became Satan, yea, even the devil,the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."
Satan does all he can to destroy God's work. He seeks "the misery of all mankind...He seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself" he does not love us. He does not want us to be happy. he wants us to be his slaves. He uses many disguises to enslave us.

Well then we are back to here as well,
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Coming to earth
We understood that we had to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not leave in the presence of our Heavenly Father. While we were away from Him all of us would sin and some of us would loose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so He planned a way to help us.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, "Whom shall I send? Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me"
Jesus was willing to come to the earth , give His life for us, and take upon Himself our sins. He like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father's commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation . Jesus said, "Father , thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." (Moses 4:2)

Satan who is also a son of God who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold here am I, send me. I will be thy son and I will redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost and surely I will do it. Wherefore give me thy honor. Satan wanted to use force and wanted the honor to himself. In other words he wanted to overthrow God. Heavenly Father gave us the gift of free agency.

Because our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, Satan became angry and rebelled. There was war in heaven. Satan and his followers fought against Jesus Christ and his followers. (that would be you and me and every one on this earth) the Savior's followers "overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus)and by the word of their testimonies"
In this great rebellion, Satan and all the spirits who followed him were sent away from the presence of God and cast down from heaven. Aa third part of the hosts of heaven were punished for following Satan.

Because we are here on earth and have mortal bodies we know that we chose to follow Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. Satan and his followers are also on the earth but as spirits. They are around us daily.

Well then we are back to here as well,
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Yes, i think you're unintellectual and plain stupid. You preach with nothing to back anything you say up. You don't even listen to the opinions of others. You're Christian because of where you grew-up.

@ Achems

"Your god made imperfect human beings and then blames them for his mistakes!!"

Your the one , that killed his own son .We're the ones your blaming it on.

Where is the prophet then and what god has left? What about all the bad , No intervention from angles above. And god is the reason that Satan lives on. So I guess I could be so simple and nieve as to Blame it on god , then?

Laurie, Ah, so then you believe in science, science makes the world go round does it not? if your god did not create diseases, like flu's, etc: and all the other major diseases.
Or was at least smart enough to create bodies that did not have all the afflictions that you mention. Then we would not have to rely on our own resources to keep ourselves alive, would we? where then would we be if not by our science, all dead!!

Your god made imperfect human beings and then blames them for his mistakes!!

If someone asked you why is it important to have agency what would you say?

"Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee" Moses 3:17

God has told us through his prophets that we are free to choose between good and evil. We may choose liberty and eternal life by following Jesus Christ. We are also free to choose captivity and death by following Satan. The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.

Laurie, You do not really believe in any gods, if you did why do you go and buy 300$ silver wands to cure your ills and woes, and make your cat younger,

I thought just by praying to your god he would solve all your problems for you? Does that mean your god does not care? Or maybe it means that there is no god?

Do you think that people who believe in God don't take Tylanol for headaches or calcium supplements for osteo arthritis or thyroid pills for underactive thyroid gland or anti biotics for infections or get a cast for broken bones? Plenty of people who beleive in God go to the hospital to have babies and have operations and get the flue shot. Since when does medicine exclude believers in God. All that is good is from God. God doesn't give any bad gifts to his children. God created herbs with medicinal values he created gem stones with medicinal values and energy for healing. We live in a sea of energy.

Epicurusol
oh laurie you must live in such a happy fairy world. enjoy it. i dont think its any use to comment to you anymore.

Well I am very happy. This week I got a new grand daughter. Holding her feels like she is straight from Heavenly Father's presence. The veil is not completely closed on her yet. She can see things that I can't. Being born is as hard as dying. Leaving Heavenly Father's presence must be very hard. We are well informed of what life on earth will be like and it is a scary thing to take the plunge knowing that some of us won't make it back to Heavenly Father's presence because of the choices we make here on earth.

I wish you the best Epicurusol for you must go but I have been in your life for a short while and we have learned from one another

Thats evolution and the universe doing what it does, There is TONS of evidence to prove that all that is natural. What evidence dictates god except your awe at the universe? If you understood evolutionary science you would see this.

It’s people like you that discredit any “new age” beliefs. You’re so flakey that, people read things like what you’ve written here and assume that anyone interested in some of these ideas must be unintellectual or just plain stupid.

What are you saying? Are you saying that I'm unintellectual and plain stupid or you are assuming that I think people are unintellectual and plain stupid for something that I'm not sure of.

laurie what you responded to me had nothing to do with what i said to you. actually if anything it reaffirmed that you should not appeal to your emotions but to logic and reason. you need to educate yourself on physics and human health from stuff rather than new age self help mumbo jumbo books.

you have to wonder why all these self help things are so much money....and when you go to their websites it is a complete marketing scam.

lol oh laurie you must live in such a happy fairy world. enjoy it. i dont think its any use to comment to you anymore.

And can you please give me some evidence of this , god , of which you speak?
\
There is a God
What are some things that testify to me that there is a God?
"All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth , and all things that are upon the face of it , yea, and its motion, and also all the planets which move in in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." There are millions of stars and planets, all in perfect order. They did not get there by chance. We can see the work of God in the heavens and on the earth. The many beautiful plants, the many kinds of animals, the mountains , the rivers, the clouds that bring us rain and snow - all these things testify to me there is a God.

It's people like you that discredit any "new age" beliefs. You're so flakey that, people read things like what you've written here and assume that anyone interested in some of these ideas must be unintellectual or just plain stupid.

how about instead of reading books by Dr. Phil and simplistic story books like chicken soup for whatever soul, try some academic research type books. actually learn something. rather than just appeal to your emotions and biases.

As members of the human race, we primarily perceive life through our senses. We get our information about people, places,things, and events from what we witness and experience as we move through the days of our lives.
We are receptors, or receivers, of data about what is going on around us and around the world. This information to a great degree, helps to form what we think of as our-self- that is our beingness, which includes personality, thoughts, emotions, actions, reactions, and our general outlook on life. In other words , the information we receive from our senses helps to form who we think we are.

Great flood? Do you mean the natural , scientific , explainable way the earths land mass was devoured by the natural expanding of the ocean after the last Ice Age?

And can you please give me some evidence of this , god , of which you speak? Because I can not find any. Neither can anyone who ever searched for some.We are talking about alot of brilliant minds.Do you know something those great minds did not? Please share with us your special insight into this issue.

Spiritual body , huh? You mean the way our brain works when awed by something not understood or enlightening?

Like when you smell coco and think of coco-puffs over orange juice as a kid?

“”destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). This certainly seems harsh, vengeful , intollerant ,brutal and vindictive, huh?

Do you think the great flood was any different? God gave the order. It is better for one man to die than a whole nation to wallow in unbelief. God didn't want the Israelites to mix intermarry with the Caananites. He wanted a people unto himself. A people to keep his laws and ordinances. Who are you and me to judge God?

God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for in his sight, all are alive. The spirit is both birthless and deathless. The Principle of life cannot know death. The experience of dying is but the laying off of an old garment, and the donning of a new one. There are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial, there is a material body and a spiritual body. The spiritual body is the resurrection body. -ErnestHolmes The science of mind

“No Creed must be accepted as authority of a divine nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified.”
The Book of Satan (Fire) I:6

Then explain how people have OBEs without being near death. This is documented. Would this not be a case of their bodies and their 'spirits' living separately? These people are still breathing and have heartbeats.

@Laurie, you know very much work has been done in neurology on people experiencing near death experiences and out of body experiences. we are able to induce these episodes in people with neural stimulation of the temporal lobe and hippocampus. there is nothing spiritual or magical about it.

you are once again arguing from a position of ignorance. you dont understand these things so you attribute some supernatural cause and since you believe in the christian god (your dominant cultural god) you are able to use that accepted delusion as your supernatural cause.

how about instead of reading books by Dr. Phil and simplistic story books like chicken soup for whatever soul, try some academic research type books. actually learn something. rather than just appeal to your emotions and biases.

and do you REALLY think the stories in the bible ACTUALLY happened? do you think referencing the bible and quoting it is good support for anything?? why do you believe myth?

Adam and Eve were among our Father's noblest children. In the spirit world Adam was called Michael the archangel (Jude 1:9) he was chosen by our Heavenly Father to lead the righteous in the battle against Satan (Revelation 12:7-9). Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents. The Lord promised Adam great blessings: :I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of of nations shall come of theee, and thou art a prince over them forever."

I assume she refuses to learn that. I suspect the more fanatical Christian’s (i.e. those who believe in creation myth) view science taught in schools as a form of brainwashing. At least this is true for most evangelists. So when learning evolution in school they view it with the predisposition that what is being taught is in some way evil, manipulative and ultimately wrong. So in turn they all just switch off and no matter how much you emphasise the importance of evidence they will not respond.

Have you ever heard of people dying on an operating table and seeing, visiting another world then coming back into their body. Out of body experience. That is the spirit leaving the body the spirit never dies. The body is just a shell, matter to be acted upon. Our body without the spirit has no life.

I assume she refuses to learn that. I suspect the more fanatical Christian's (i.e. those who believe in creation myth) view science taught in schools as a form of brainwashing. At least this is true for most evangelists. So when learning evolution in school they view it with the predisposition that what is being taught is in some way evil, manipulative and ultimately wrong. So in turn they all just switch off and no matter how much you emphasise the importance of evidence they will not respond.

@ ez2b12
God prepared this earth as a home for His children. Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth. Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents.

Here is something to think about. Was Adam put on the earth as a baby or as an adult? Does he have parents? Was his body flesh and bones or spirit ? God the Father or I should say Heavenly Mother did not give birth to children of flesh and bones. They have spirit children. Spirits do not die. Is it possible that Adam came from another planet (another earth)and was transported to this earth for a mission (part of God's plan). Their children would have a physical body of course matter. At some point during the pregnancy the spirit of that baby being formed enters the physical body in formation. So we are spirit (never dies) and physical (mortal). This is not reincarnation. We are intelligence, spirit, mortal. All three in one .

""destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys" (Joshua 6:21). This certainly seems harsh, vengeful , intollerant ,brutal and vindictive, huh?

Beautiful maybe. But is not the mind doing the thinking, thus it is the mind that controls ones feelings? Just like when you walk into a room and smell something familiar from youth , you seem to either smile or gag , depending on the smell?

When I am hot and rebellious, bitter and cynical and sarcastic; when it seems as though evil can win in the world and the battle is to the strong;

When it seems as though pride possesses all the high places, and greatness belongs to those who can grab the most;

When it seems as if faith is mocked, love fails miserably and humility is trodden to the dust;

When pity seems weakness and sympathy folly; when a foul egotism rises up within me and would bid me assert myself, plan for myself, serve my own interests, play for my own hand and "take care of number one";

Then, O my lord, may I hear in imagination the gentle splashing of water falling into a basin, and see the Sson of God washing His disciples' feet!
(Leslie D. Weatherhead, The Eternal Voice, new York: Abingdon Press, 1940 pp81-82)

Here is my thought for the day
Reading the scripture and other good books nourishes our minds, just as good food nourishes our bodies. Books are like companions. They can lift us up or tear us down. We should read only books that will help us become better people. Good books help us appreciate what is good, beautiful, and true.

I'm with Chris, I have to know where you came up with this beautifully original idea of humans being reincarnate from some entity that had previousely known God on such a personal level. I am a theologian, at least I have a degree in theology, and as a result I hear a lot of new and interesting opinions on what, who, where god is and how we have related to him now and in the past. This is a new one though and maybe the most beautiful I have ever heard. Is this something you learned from someone or did you formulate this based on personal interpretation of the scriptures. Or maybe you gain this knowledge through a personal experience? I am mostly interested in a an academic sence but it is also a beautiful theology. If you don't mind I would like to ask more questions and possibly use this in a paper.
By the way what where you referring to about SIM city? I never said we where computer generated or anything remotely connected to that. Are you reffering to what they said in this doc? If so I would have to say that i for one do not take that particular theory to heart. Notice I did not say it wasn't so, I said I do not take it to heart. Their are indicators that would lead one to consider the possibility and somoeone obviousely did. I for one would not want to know if it where true. This is the only case where I could say man would be better off not knowing. It would really take the juice out of life for me, why go on. Just to entertain some screw ball programer. No, I don't believe it and I refuse to consider it. Doesn't mean it couldn't be or isn't true though.

@ Scott

If a religion has more than one person that calls it "their faith" it has to be theistic. A loose association of people with different beliefs can not say they are a religion. Thierfore all "religions" are theistic by definition. I think you mean to say that you can be a theist (believe in god) and have a relationship with god with out being theistic (subscribing to a set of spelled out and agreed upon beliefs)- This is very true and is the way most people that I know that are theist operate now days. Very few people seem to be comfortable proclaiming themselves to fit within the strict definitions of the etablished religions. Jews are an exception to this rule. Most Jewish people are proud of their religion and try their best to follow the established doctrine. As a people their traditions defined them for a long time and it is woven tightly into their identities as Jews. Christians on the other hand seem to be running from the past idiocy of the established churches. I do not blame them one bit. The church has made some rediculus claims and been truly immoral in the past. This has discouraged belief and participation. I myself am atheist but, I think the Christians would do well to seperate from the established rule.

Okay, but where did you learn this philosophy or is it something of your own? I would point out that the Scriptures clearly state that we were all born into and out from Adam, inheriting Adam's nature. Can you supply a reference that would indicate humans had a heavenly existence before our physical birth?

What about the millions/billions of people who pray in the same way but do not receive any help and live stressful and miserable lives?

A counter-example is enough to disprove a theory, but an example cannot prove a theory. Its like saying all prime numbers are odd. But in fact 2 is not odd. Therefore we can conclude the theory to be false. Similarly if somebody were to find a fossil of a human (or any modern life form)from the pre-Cambrian era, then that would be enough to disprove evolution.

Laurie
A similar story
A boy wanted to become a doctor in India,but he could not read. He didn't pray for anything. In time the government srated a school in his village and he attended school and studied hard and went to medical school and became a doctor. He aquired knowledge by him self with the help of teachers. NO other higher power needed.

Ashish
A little story
This man wanted to study the scriptures, but he could not read. He prayed for Heavenly Father to help him learn to read. In time a teacher came to his village, and he asked the teacher to help him. He learned the alphabet. He studied sounds and learned to put the letters together to make words. Soon he was reading simple words. The more he practiced the more he learned. He thanked the Lord for sending the teacher and for helping him learn to read. This man has also increased in faith, humility, and knowledge.
There must be works with faith. How foolish it would be to ask the Lord to give us knowledge, but how wise to ask the Lord's help to acquire knowledge, to study constructively, to think clearly, and to retain things that we have learned. Faith involves doing all the things we can to bring about the things we hope and pray for.

I met God... unfortunately he let the fame get to his head and now he's addicted to meth, alcohol and coke, not to mention all the bitches he's surrounded by. Where did I meet him you ask??? Easy, in the cue at the Apple store.

On a less ridiculous note. I think there is no evidence for God and equally no evidence for the absence of God. So there can only be one rational answer and that is agnosticism. Sure I could assign a probability of a God existing or not, but that would be speculation. All religion is pure speculation, but no priest, rabbi, guru or imam will admit this (probably because they don't realise it). In so saying the paragraph above is no more ridiculous than all religions.

To believe that there may be some force responsible for the universe is one thing. But to then think that this force is actually a person in human form that listens to our prayers and judges how we live our lives is speculation too far from my point of view.

I think its safe to assume that no book describing the universe is going to fall into our laps any time soon. So the truth is something we need to discover for ourselves. We need science to determine what is true and what is false. The scientific method really is the yellow brick road that can guide us towards the truth. My itsy bitsy brain struggles to imagine a better method than science.

I have no religious beliefs nor do I speculate on the existence of God, but admittedly I occasionally feel compelled to give thanks to something for being here today. I choose the Sun that bathes us with energy, a plant that initiates the food chain through photosynthesis or the 3.5 billion year unbroken chain of ancestors that we share (and so many more factors that play a crucial role). That's all I need really!!!

@ Chris
A veil covers our memories of our premortal life, but our Father in heaven knows who we are and what we did before we came here. He has chosen the time and place for each of us to be born so we can learn the lessons we personally need and do the most good with our individual talents and personalities.

@ ez2b12
Because He (God) was more intelligent , saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. It has nothing to do with SIM CITY. We are not a computer program. "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parent, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father , prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical body)." Because we as the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Why did we need to leave Heavenly Father's presence? We could not progress further in Heaven.What happens on earth? We sin, a Savior has been provided, we develop faith, we learn obedience and the ability to conform to His laws, we have trials, sickness, disappointment, pain, sorrow, death.

I kinda see what your saying.
However, are you saying that metaphysics and philosophy are the same thing?
I don't see how you can have science without philosophy. Where would your hypothesis come from. If you think about it philosophy is where science started.

Maybe you're just saying that philosophizing about GOD is fruitless. But if not:

What about psychology? It is a science. In many respects it is less tangible (i.e. there is no mind-car). But it's fruits are event throughout society. Psychology tells us how to advertise effectively (sometimes manipulatively [let's be honest--OFTEN]), it also teaches how people learn and how that can be used to increase comprehension.
My point is most of these things are solely ideas--philosophy.

Some great comments here, and a really good documentary. I like the narrator, but i dislike those neonazi comments put in here. Still wondering some people have this rassist black/white thinking in this millenium.
Thanks for this documentary, we do not have such great in Europe in TV. Cheers.

I don't put my potatoes and onions in the fridge because my mother and grandmother didn't put their potatoes and onions in the fridge. Dr. Oz says there is a scientific reason why potatoes and onions shouldn't go in the fridge. Maybe my ancestor discovered that but for me it was tradition. I never even questioned why.

the classical Greeks seperated science from religion 2300+ years ago and just look at the technological marvels that have arisen from this seperation!!! why would we want to go back to the dark ages of top ended knowledge for the few a'la ancient egypt?

You may not have used that exact term, I thought you did. Saying that we can not know god through science is something I would definetly agree on. And the fact the data does not point toward any preinterpretation of what god is, thats something else I agree on. At best it can support the abandonment theory, as stated by Hawkins. How then would we know god? Through personal experience or some spiritually based ritual, through phylosophy, through one another- how does one come to know god, in your opinion? I am merely interested in an academic sence.

Where did I say a landslide? I don't recall using that term. By the way, I wouldn't say that the data points to a theistic God, but I would say that the implications of the data seem to rule out other possibilities. In fact, I don't think you can find God through science. But I do believe that all the pieces will never fit together in in a description of a universe that depends upon itself for its own existence.

Theoretical science is theorized from basic scientific principles like math, geometry etc: that may form tangible facts, or proofs. that say for one, may make new stuff that we are all so found off.

Metaphysical, philosophical conundrums are just thoughts, that form what? more thoughts, basically concerning the grand scheme of things, why are we here, what is religion per: the CA, a philosophical argument about god.
Buddha philosophy also mainly concerns the nature of man and why we are here, without the advent of gods.

Religion is nothing else than a system. And each system is neither good or wrong, it's just what human do with it.
Is democracy deeply wrong? No. But Democracy based on a majority of votes is wrong. Democracy based on consensus is good.
Is religion deeply wrong? No (I can imagine a religion that you could never reject, with peaceful dogmas which are not draconian). But religion based on harming people, killing them is wrong. You know the rest...

So, the dark ages come from humans mind poverty.
And what happens with the science is like what happens when a teenager flees her home authority : it's self-repress, debauchery, and things have just toggled in the extreme opposite.

Signed : a human who use science and metaphysic as two eyes to see the world.

This is totally off subject, sorry. You and I had a debate recently where you said that a land slide number of scientist where beginning to turn to religion or theism. I said that thier where a few but not a land slide. Well I went and found the actuall stats and thought I would post them here. The actuall number of leading scientists that have turned to theism- 7.5 % and another 20% that are agnostic. So you where more right than I had supposed. I mean this is what 27.5 % that are at least willing to entertain the idea of a creator. That is far more than i would have guessed. Still not a land slide but it does show a definite trend. More and more scientists are turning to the supernatural because of QM in my opinion. The mechanics of this science are so counter intuitive that it breeds disbelief. That being said the accuracy of QM has been compared to measuring the width of North America down to the thickness of a human hair by prominant scientists all over the world. What does this say about our faith in reason versus empirical data. Obviousely we cling to our current understanding and refuse to let go even in the face of remarkable evidence. This is my opinion any way, I know others feel the science is wrong. How can it be when it makes such accurate predictions. QM may not make good predictions at the relativity level but you can not beat it when working within the Quantum domain. Anyone can feel free to respond to this, not just Chris. He and I had been talking about this before so I adresssed this to him, feel free to join in.

What exactly is whack about my logic. I am 37 and I was duped as you say along with many others at the time this book came out. You say you where not, then why did you obviousely think that he had the ability to conceptualize string theory long before scienece itself had. I can point out all kinds of correlations between reality and science fiction works, what is the point. If the book moved you fine, lots of fiction is moving. But wether you want to admit it or not you imnplied some type of validity to his work when you compare it to actuall science. If all you where saying is " What a coincidence that he imagined something similar to current theory." then I apologize. I misunderstood you I guess.

You haven't read my posts.
I never claimed the books were fact. I'm 26 I wasn't duped. I knew the history BEFORE I read the books a few years ago.
Your logic is wack man.

You say: "It is not easy to accept that soemtimes the things that move us are constructs designed to do just that."

That's exactly what I'm saying that I DO accept. The book moved me and that's what I value. I never tried to claim that Carlos was a scientist nor did I claim that everything he wrote was a fact (despite what HE might have claimed.)

Chill brother, no one said you couldn't worship Carlos. He was a fraud though. He tried to pass off a lie as the truth, it is as simple as that. They did prove that he never went to the places he said he did and that thier was no one named Don Jaun that instructed him. You fell for it just like a ton of others, including me- get over it. To put down someone else just becuase they said they found the books assuming and presumptuous shows that you are clearly predjudice in your opiniion on the subject. It is not easy to accept that soemtimes the things that move us are constructs designed to do just that. It makes us feel simple or tricked. Its cool man, many many people bought this one but, it still isn't true.

The only value those books have, is to give food for thought, which is good, did not say it wasn't. We are talking about science here on this doc. and a lot of this stuff on this doc. is also just food for thought, et al: But, to borrow a phrase, "philosophy bakes no bread!"

So are you saying that as a work of fiction Carlos' books have no value? I also don't see how someone writing on similar material is any mark against that material. I value those books for the thought processes they inspired me to have and how they made me question my world view. Saying something is a work of fiction isn't synonymous with saying it is a work of lies.

To further reiterate, again before knew better, read all of Jane Roberts, "Seth books", which preceded Castaneda books, all the strings, vibrational units, multidimensional existences selves, etc: etc: was all portrayed there, and then some. So was nothing new, but you know, find it incongruous that science is now looking at all this stuff.

My take is that the branes aren't floating in empty space, what empty space? if space, then is not empty. The branes are a vibrational unit, as in vibrations. As say guitar strings etc: Re: string theory. You have to add 11 dimensions into this for string theory to be viable, which then leads to parallel worlds theory, all part and parcel of M theory.

"I agree again Achems. I read him in high school..I wasnt impressed and found it quite assuming and presumptuous."

If you didn't find the books challenged the way you look at the world (fiction or non) then I might suggest you didn't really read them. Perhaps your "blue buddies" close doors that would be better left open.

Yes I have read Carlos Castaneda’s books. He is just some dude that got high on mushrooms as far as I can see. I know he said that he did not take the "little smoke" after awhile and could still experience these things, bs. I think he just wanted to sell a book in a time when the whole spiritual journey through hallucinogens was the hip thing, dig it. I happen to be one of those that bought this crap for a while in college, did tons of acid, mescaline, mushrooms, and weed. Its all drugs nothing more and nothing less, don't be fooled.
The kenetic energy that is transferred comes from the branes moving toward one another. This is caused by the small force exerted on matter due to quantum motion. In the doc they said they hung two metal plates in a vaccuum and left them. The plates moved toward one another until they came together. This was due to the particles in empty space that exerted a small force on the plates. I suppose gravity was too weak to be the culprit, not sure why it was ruled out. The branes supposedly move together like the metal plates until they make contact, quantum force is once again at work. At the point of contact this movement is transformed into radiation energy and injected into both the branes. They did not mention how long they stayed together but, they did mention that energy in the form of radiation was all the two branes shared. So this would mean that all the forces, matter, anti-matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy are all born of radiation. Seems a bit fishy to me.
As far as other things being more important, I disagree. I believe through scienece we can cure hunger, desease, segregation, and much more. Thierfore I see it as the most important thing in the universe right now, other than us. It is the means by which we sustain ourselves. Agriculture is science just as egineering is. Medicine is science and so is psychiatry. These fields are helping people right now and are very tangible. That said if you value something more that's fine. Maybe a science discussion forum isn't the best place to voice that opinion though. I do not go to religiouse or charity sites and start pushing the importance of science. All this sounds like I am much more frustrated than I really am, its no big deal. I have my opinion and you guys have yours.

The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. With a few exceptions such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions and the photovoltaic effect, absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. So if the two branes collide and kenetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic radiation but thier is not matter present to absorb this radiation, where does the heat come from? And how does this radiation eventually become matter?

Has anyone every read any of Carlos Castaneda's books? I find it more than a little fascinating that Don Juan describes something VERY similar to the descriptions I've heard of string theory when he talks about perceiving energy directly.

I fail to see how kinetic energy would be what we are talking about here. Kinetic energy is defined as 'the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity.'

These membranes are 11 dimensional universes suspended in what is supposedly empty space (though this couldn't be three dimensional space.) I got the impression that these membranes were in a state of fluctuation which lasted until all the created energy dissipated. At which point the two membranes would then once again be subject to their attraction and thus colliding and starting the cycle again.
So I guess my question is what is the mass of these membranes when they reach the end of the cycle? And how much work does it take to push these membranes through 11 dimensions of empty space. Seems like it would be none to me and seems like there would then be NO kinetic energy. Maybe I'm way off track. :0)

@ez2b12
I really don't think jasonsociety was referring to the petty needs and desires of one person. I think he was referring to the argument that, staring all day at the stars or the origin of the big bang, will not bring peace on earth, nor will it cure starvation. These thing to him are probably "far more important things to worry about in our short life times."
Which I think is a fair thing to mention. I mean I guess you could argue there's no telling what these discoveries could lead to... but helping people NOW is certainly more tangible.

Are the branes proposed to be colliding homogenious, by which I mean would the same laws of physics apply to each or could the branes be structurally different?

When they collide how long do they interact and what kind of energy,matter or forces effect one to the other?

Could the lack of corresponding amounts of antimatter in our universe be explained by this brane collision, the antimatter particles spreading in one brand and matter particles in the other? or are we just talking about energy at this collision which latter somehow coelesced into matter?

I've always been intrigued by physics, maybe someone who knows more than me can answer these questions or tell me why they are stupid questions to ask.

Yes, all elements were present in BB, maybe not present as we know them, could of been at the basic levels, the basic building blocks, yes, and then created from stars, but the building blocks came out of what? nothing? Everything needed for the universe was inherent in the singularity. and due to reactions, formed everything that we know.

Nothing was condensed into the forms that we know, everything was just hot plasma at the beginning then cooled.

So are you saying that you feel all the heavy elements where present in the big bang? This is not my belief I believe they where created in the nuclear reactions of stars. I believe all the forces where present but unified into one single force.

@ Bootstrap

What they say is that the singularity came out of nothing, not the big bang. The big bang came from the singularity. The singularities origin is the big mystery. If it was born of a natural process something must have existed before it, well any natural process we know of. I theorize we have more natrural processes to discover and eventually we will find one that feesably could have created the singularity. A quantum fluctuation, or a spontaneouse assembledge of particles. could be the answer. But this would mean that at least quarks had to exist before the singularity, as they are the most fundamental particle we know of. This would seem to follow suit with what we know of complex systems though. All complex systems evolve from the previouse system. RNA evolves into DNA, single celled animals evolve into multi-cellular life, even social systems like politics and religion have evolved throuhgh out the years, they did not just appear. Perhaps Einsteins universe of relativity evolved out of a quantum universe. Just a guess but, one that is supported by some scientists.

@ Scott

No I wasn't asking that. It makes sence that the two branes could be in a kinetic energy state and when they collide this would be converted to radiation. Some radiation then converts to matter and viola, a universe is born. I get it. What I was saying is that if the two branes swap energy it would seem that due to the law of conservation of energy they would have the same amount of overall energy after the collision. The only real difference is that it has been converted to radiation. I suppose that you could say that the energy still exists but has entered another universe, this doesn't break the rule and lets one of the branes increase its overall amount of energy while the other would lose some energy. This senario doesn't seem right though, for the energy to go into another universe. It would seem to lose information this way and this breaks a rule as well. Say that during the collision the radiation that is created converts into a particle and its anti particle. What if they get seperated, one goes to one universe the other goes to the adjacent universe.I suppose this could not happen though, as the walls of the branes would not allow it. They allow energy to collide but once matter is created it must be bound inside its own brane. I wish I could ask one of those guys on here that supported the brane theory about this.

What could possibly be more important than discovering how and why we and everything else exists? You may have more important things but, they are only important to you. To man kind as a whole science is infinetly more important than the petty needs or desires of any one person. If we accept the limits you have placed on our potential we might as well just give up and spend our time playing video games. It is important to remember relativity and most all science takes it into account. But we should never stop believing in our ability to discover and understand. "How beautifiul is man, Noble in every gesture..." Do not forget these words or our tendency to fall short of them.

I don't think we could ever come close to finding answers to how the universe began. We are (humans) arrogant to think that humans, with our few hundred year old science and technology could explain the vast billions of years (may be many more) old uni/multy-verse (or what ever). What ever the theories we come up with are always going to be relative to our minds/senses, the limit is the mind, we right equations we conduct experiments, we collect data, we analyze data, we give it meaning (relative to our conceptual understanding), we try to explain as we see/feel it. Who are we to say this is the ONLY knowledge about the universe. It's good to talk aboubt string theory, big bang, big crunch but we should always remember that this knowledge is relative and not universal, we can never prove even anything exists apart from our minds. It's fun to read/hear and be fascinated about the "unknown" but there are far more important things to worry about in our short life times.

Maybe you are right @Frank. After all we are talking about theoretical physics and it very much has it's head in the clouds and is not grounded on what we see, hear, taste and smell in our daily lives.

My question to you is this. What are higher dimensional objects made of? do they contain planets, x-rays and solar systems? Do they have to conform to our perception of our x-ray and planet containing solar system? Do the borders have a spatial boundary in the higher/lower dimensions?

If you can answer these question then you will be on the way to understanding the feasibility of your postulates.

Everything has its origin at the quantum level. And at that level nothing is solid, it is basically empty space, with atoms flickering in and out of existences. So if collisions occur between the Branes there would be no bouncing back and forth, well...there might be, but we would not feel it.

Since QM-string theory says we are in a vibrational frequency, one note, say on a guitar string, when branes collide another note may be trying to superimpose with a different frequency, causing a big bang, another different note/vibrational unit, re: universe.

I find this impossible because if this brane would be contained in some sort of border then there must be planets, xrays, and whole solar systems bouncing off the 'walls' or borders and move in oposite direction as the other solar systems. Wich is not the case everything moves the same direction and nothing is bouncing back so that must mean that we are not in a brane.
unlless this brane has no walls.... but how can they colide in eachother then?

Common forms of energy described in Phsyics are kinetic energy(due to motion) and potential energy (due to height).

For two branes to collide they must be in motion. Just like two cars crashing at a road intersection transfer kinetic energy into noise and heat (both forms of energy). Presumably so does a brane! In the case of brane's the implication is that two higher dimensional branes collide and the energy of their motion gets transferred through the collision into lower dimensional (our universe) energy.

Energy is trnsfered from motion into noise and heat.

This would also imply that conservation of energy could work between dimensions!!

What you seemed to be asking initially and what I was wondering during the doc, was where does the energy come from when two branes collide? It seems like either one of the two universes would have to have all the energy and then disperse it between the two. Or somehow matter is being created when they touch.

Just watched this doc, looking for anything new for my next crop of freshmen to watch. Interesting to see the steady state universe and the oscillating universe rearing their misguided heads, after all these years. (at one time, wasn't Morgan Freeman "God?" You would think he could be a bit more helpful...)

What is truly amazing to me is how easy it seems to be, as well as unchallenged, to transfer and bestow the attributes and properties of mathematical infinity to the concept of physical infinity.

The matter of physical infinity has stumped the greatest minds in history, and for good reason. While infinity is a useful tool in solving some math problems, it remains an impossible concept when applied to the physical universe. But, since mathematics is the language of science, it just seems so logical to try to pull infinity off the chalkboard into the physical universe.

This is where concepts like the steady state universe, the multiverse, and the oscillating universe get into trouble -- they all depend upon the existence of physical infinities and upon confusing actual infinities with potential infinities. Actual infinity isn't just a "really, really, really big number. It is ALL numbers. Potential infinities (like the numbers on a counter or timer) can never get so big that they turn into actual infinities.

Example: one reason (among many) that the steady state universe cannot exist is that it requires infinite amounts of low entropy. But a few observations clearly demonstrate that entropy is increasing at a rate that can be measured. A steady state universe would have reached the highest possible state of entropy and experienced heat death "forever" ago.

The Big Bang Standard Model does not require the existence of actual infinities to make it work. With all its problems (of which there are many) the BB is the best, most comprehensive explanation. The biggest problem with the BB Standard Model is that the existence of that darn pesky initial singularity 13.7 billion years ago defies explanation.

I do not know if the universe came from nothing, but even Stephen Hawking gives reference that it probably came from nothing,
For further clarification, read my post on Null physics..On "the Riddle of Black Holes"...here on TDF...at.. 07/12/2010 at 15:51

I appreciate your efforts to respond to my question. This issue has troubled me for some time. If there is a singularity it seems reasonable to conclude that the singularity, whatever its composition, is 'something'. So why do so many cosmologists seem to claim that the universe emerges from 'nothing'? I doubt it is a simple failure in logic so it seems that there must be something I'm missing.

Here are some brief thoughts...perhaps their claim has something to do with space-time at the point of the singularity. First, there cannot be a time before the big bang since time supposedly starts with the bang. Space would also not exist (I presume). Perhaps it it is the absence of space/time which constitutes nothing though we still have a singularity which remains as 'something' once it is conceptualized?

Hi, John.
My take is that everything was inherent in the singularity, space, the initial plasma from the inflation where all the elements initially came from, all the forces, all the bosons, glueons, weak, strong, electromagnetic, nuclear forces, matter, antimatter, dark matter, etc: was already in the singularity.

Later on gravity developed after about a billion years when the cooling process took affect. and then from the motion of the expanding universe, time/spacetime. after the mass of the universe contracted into stars, there was light.

The singularity was not in any void, like some kind of empty space etc: no such thing as void. Unless someone can define it for me.

The universe is such a beautiufl space. The day with reason logic philosphy theology science all come together for a elegant dance which will make so much sense that every step of the dance could be predicted. From the biggest planet to the smallest sub atomic particle =p

Calm down every one. It is a simple discussion no one is trying to say they know the answers. I ask questions here and I enjoy getting the different theories and sometimes facts that the others offer. If the moderators want these threads to be strictly about the relevancy or quality of the doc.'s then they will let us know.

@ Achem

Hey man, good to talk to you.Is it your theory that the particles where not created in the big bang or is that the official "big bang theory". Your ideas are just as relevant I just want to know if I had it wrong all along. I thought the official theory was that particles where born of the radiation of the big bang, somehow. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is the different elements being created in stars that I am getting crossed up here. How do they explain the appearance of hydrogen? Isn't that the first element known to exist? Then helium and then stars where born and all remaining elements came from the nuclear furnaces at thier hearts? So where did the Hydrogen come from?

Yeh! this was a good doc. are you happy now. There is nothing wrong with theories, or the questioning thereof, nobody here pretends to have any answers to anything. And do not tell anyone what they shall or shall not do.
I can put any comments on here that I deem relevant, you dig? Who died and made you the gate-keeper?

don't forget all of this is theory, well based theory i might add, but non the less just educated guess. please don't pretend like you have the answers!! and i agree with john, a lot of you do repeat yourselves over and over in an attempt to show everyone how smart you think you are, lets keep the comments to whether or not this was a good doc!!!!

Hi, John.
My take is. The big bang singularity was a thing in of itself, everything was already in the singularity and expanded outward. A point in nothing, whatever nothing is, my take is that there is no such thing as a nothing, to be a nothing, it had to come from something, so a nothing does not exist.
Unless maybe you can define it for me? But to give a definition you have to be conscious in a nothing, impossible!

Space was not created, and is not an empty void, space is a "thing" a substance, re: dark matter etc:, that was in the singularity, that is still expanding, and by expanding, creates time, re: spacetime.

The big bang did not create particles etc: everything was already inherent in the singularity. And by expanding, created the universe, which in my take is a closed system that would be finite, or infinite, may be expanding forever.

Empty space is not empty, as you said. It is filled with particles that we can not see. Quantum mechanics would suggest that these particles could concievably assemble themselves into any and every thing, spontaneously- Each particle is full of infinity possibilities as too its location and relation to other particles. Its a lot more complex than that and I am sure others can elaborate. My understanding though is that these particles where created in the big bang so how could they have formed the singularity? Do I even have what I have said so far right? This is just my take, not researched fact.

You deduced all wrong man, its a good doc. Doesn't push religion at all. Its about science in fact, not religion. Just because religion is mentioned doesn't make it propaganda. What does a "black" voice sound like by the way? Sound is usually not associated with color, unless you lived in the sixties. I took a few of those magical pills myself, still no color /sound combo for me. Did I miss understand you, I'm sure I did. Flash backs you know

Here is a question which continues to baffle me. I have not yet watched the documentary, but many cosmologists claim that the universe emerged from 'nothing,' and that from this void everything that we take to be the universe came into being.

Another documentary "A Universe from Nothing (Lecture)" argues this point by examining what is presumably empty space, which is actually not empty when examined on a 'mirco' level. In other words, what looks like 'nothing' is actually 'something'.

It doesn't make sense to me how something could emerge from nothing. Could we not say that there has always been something...one infinitely dense point in space?

I watched this "documentary" for 2 minutes. I became suspicious when a black voice began narrating, and when he uttered "god" I made the easy deduction that this video would show primitive superstition hitch-hiking on the back of science. Understand this: Religion and science are not compatible. The word "Science" appearing at the bottom right corner of the screen insults intelligent people.

I thought the documentary was a real eye opener. I had never heard the " brane theory" really spelled out all the way. If the two branes swap energy wouldn't they both end up with relatively the same amount as they started with. I think it is the conversion of the kinetic energy to radiation that is the real kick off in this theory. Since all matter is energy condensed to a small vibration, or so they say, it follows that everything tangible could have been born of this radiation- doesn't it? Still the theory sets up a infinite regression and predicts absolute infinity, therefore avoiding the ultimate question- what started it all. To say their is no beginning or end hints at some supernatural force, or maybe I am just not able to conceive this. Everything I have ever known or heard of that was truth- had a beginning and an end. So I guess it is foolish to think I could conceive of infinite regression or the opposite. Existence is finite to my mind unless I let go of the reality that i know, wouldn't that be discarding logic though. How could that be the way to figure anything out, to let go of logic. Its enough to make your head spin. A great doc. though don't miss this one.

OH COMON PEOPLE. Dont you guys realize there is a forum here where you can argue? I'm so sick of wanting to read comments about the quality of the documentary, and having to wade through these huge theological debates you guys REPEAT OVER AND OVER.

You don't believe what? That the computer that you are using to write this did not come from science, that most everything we take for granted has come from science, do you use a cell phone etc:? are you willing to give up all that science has produced? and go back to the dark ages? Because that is all religion is, from the stone age!

Religion has tried to suppress everything that science did and still does. Per. your example.

If you were a juor on a murder trial and the prosecution had DNA , a fingerprint , blood trails and a body with a hole or two in him , but , no murder weapon , would you not consider all this evidence to prove that there was a weapon and a murder?